Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for filling in a few more details.
Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an emergency action. Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case after the fact. We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but also for the BoT and the movement in general. I trust that there will be an explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in this way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal with the fallout of that decision. Cheers, Craig On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one > of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP > talkpage. Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that > page, I have copied his comment below: > > "Hi everyone. I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have > been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV > explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post > about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even > begun to discuss what an announcement should say. WMF legal has asked > the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what > can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues. > Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now > when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For > now, please be patient. Accuracy is critically important here, and to > have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more > likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29 > December 2015 (UTC)" > > I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly > find this whole situation strange and unfortunate. However, it seems > relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be > aware of it.. > > I also agree that the information about the two new board members > should be circulated promptly. > > Newyorkbrad/IBM > > On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote: > > The removal is not transparent at all. > > > > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different. > > > > Very disappointing. > > > >> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com > >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100 > >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at > >> > least > >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be > >> > able > >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of > >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or > >> > without > >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public > >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to > simple > >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to > provide > >> > >> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this > >> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a > >> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient > >> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a > >> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot > >> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing > >> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it > >> transparent. > >> > >> best, > >> rupert > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
